Re: OK why the title boylovers?
Submitted by Jules on March 24 2002 18:01:20
In reply to OK why the title boylovers? submitted by sally on March 24 2002 12:43:20
|
Sally, You've asked some very thought-provoking questions here, and I do think that a lot of what you've said should carry a lot of weight with us. I'd like to particularly talk about the use of the term 'boylover' here, and the symbol (presumably you're referring to the blue triangle logo used here). I have to agree with you that the term 'boylover' doesn't seem particularly necessary or helpful to someone coming here as you do from 'outside the issue', if I can assume that you are outside it (correct me if I'm wrong). In fact, I think there are arguments both ways, but let me give one in favour. Suppose someone has been a Christian for a long time, and is just beginning to realise that they have a sexual attraction boys (which they've never acted on), and is wondering whether they should talk to anyone about it. At that stage they have no idea that there's a whole world of 'boylove' out there on the net, and there's really no reason why they need to. What they need is some sort of forum where they can tentatively discuss their feelings, and begin to find that they're not the only one, and so find help to deal with their feelings, and their associated feelings of guilt. The problem is that they have no way of finding such a forum. I'm not aware of any such forum on the net that is normally linked from church or denominational websites! If there were to be a forum that would help people at this stage, I suspect it would be better off not using terms like 'boylove', but more simply phrases like 'adults attracted to children' or 'men attracted to boys'. I for one would be quite keen to see such a forum set up somewhere, and to gain enough respect in the Christian world to be linked to from church and denominational websites. The nearest parallel to this would be the way that some 'ex-gay' counselling ministries have gained the respect of the church at large (although I don't agree with their particular approach). We would be looking at the establishment of a respected Christian "ministry to minor-attracted adults". But I don't see any of the churches excercising the courage to set up such a ministry yet. So what often happens to Christian men who realise that they are attracted to boys (and this is what happened in my case) is that their feelings lead them into exploring for material on the net related to boys, and that they discover the 'boylove' community and identity through that. Then after a long time exploring the world of boylove links, they happen across this site, called 'Christian', totally unexpectedly, and are quite relieved to be able to come here and unburden themselves. For people in this position, the prominent use of the term 'boylove' is essential for them to find the site in the first place, because they already know that they are 'boylovers' and are used to freely using that label of themselves. So I suppose the purpose of this site being labelled 'boylove' and using the boylove logo (but with a cross superimposed) is in order to attract the attention of Christians who have been wandering in the boylove world, and who need to find Christian brothers who have struggled with the same issues. It aims to rescue Christians from unrestrained 'boy-lust' before they have done any harm in the real world, and also to serve as a recovery group for those who have. There is of course, a risk that some men, who have not been exposed to the world of 'boylove' on the net, end up discovering it through coming to this site first, finding the label 'boylove', identifying with it, and then looking for it elsewhere. But I suspect that it is actually quite rare that it happens this way round. Whether it is helpful for men to continue calling themselves boylovers long after they have come here and found support, though, is a different matter, and one on which I can see you have some valid arguments. I for one don't always like calling myself a boylover because it can lead to a sort of complacency that says. "That's who I am and that's who I'll always be." We should all be open for change. I'm aware, though, that it's easier for me to abandon the term 'boylover' that it is for some others, because I've also discovered a growing attraction to women, and so my attraction to boys no longer defines the whole of my sexuality. Some of the men here, however, don't have that luxury, and for a long as they are attracted exclusively to boys, the term boylover can be a useful label for that orientation. (The issue of whether change is always desirable, or possible, is a separate issue, on which I don't want to comment in this discussion. Another time, maybe.) You say that you wouldn't call yourself a 'man-lover' in the sense of being attracted to men other than your husband; and of course you're right that the term would be unhelpful. However, there is a label that I think you would be happy with, without it implying lust, which is simply 'straight' or 'heterosexual'. That in itself doesn't imply that you are lusting after men; it simply states what your sexual orientation is (and what direction you would be tempted in if your guard were dropped). I think of the term 'boylover' in the same way. It doesn't have to imply lust or uncontrolled desire; it simply refers to an orientation (which can also lead to temptation). Of course, the wider world of 'boylove' means a lot more by it, namely unashamed eroticism, and I sometimes wish there was a different word we could use here. Thank you for visiting us, and bringing a refreshing female perspective. This place can get too exclusively male sometimes (for obvious reasons!) I hope you had a good day at church! With Christian love, Jules |
Follow ups: